Skip to main content

Google+ can merge longform content with statuses, but Twitter's brevity is still an advantage

Ezra Klein (one of my favorite follows on Twitter) posted some thoughts about Google+ vs Twitter, giving the nod to Google+. It's really not too surprising. He's a political writer and, as such, he'll want to be able to expand on his thoughts. Google+ gives him the space he needs for his thoughts and have conversations on it in one interface. Twitter just lets him post something simple and then link to his expansion on the subject.

It's great, but Google needs to bake Blogger in with Plus and Reader, and allow people to post in any of those places, and anything that is posted to Public or a designated Circle goes on a page that can have a customizable, public facing template. It would be formidable competition to Tumblr, but most importantly, it would be a huge step towards consolidating our online thoughts. As much as I think that Circles fragments our lives, incorporating these products would actually allow Circles to do what it's supposed to do in the first place: make it easier to share things.

But while I agree with Klein that Google+ is a better place for having actual conversations, I think he misses the real value in Twitter's character limit: that it's so popular precisely because it boils down people's thoughts into more manageable chunks. It's easier to get actual news from Twitter because people can't go off into long, drawn-out thoughts. Comedians are forced to be even more witty. And inane comments or posts on subjects that don't interest you are easier to gloss over than in longer forms.

I love that there's a better place for having conversations, but I don't think that Google+'s pros detract from Twitter's pros at all.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why you should be clicking the Google +1 button

One of the things that most makes me feel like I'm beating my head against a wall is when I'm trying to convince people to click reaction buttons like the Facebook Like button or Google +1 button on web pages. I think that most people just don't really think to do it when they read something that they like, but they should, because as Avinash Kaushik brilliantly termed it , it's applause.  Now, I kind of get why people shy away from the using the Facebook Like button: because it shows up on your Wall, has a chance to show up in people's stream and now shows up in the ticker. All of those things are great for people trying to promote their content and get more clicks, but it's not so great for those of us just trying to get feedback on what people are liking and if they're actually reading what we're writing. Even if you're not actively embarrassed to have people know that you like it, it just feels a little more intrusive than a lot of people wan...
Post a Comment
Read more

Some scattered thoughts on the money of digital music

If you haven't already read Digital Audio Insider's interview with Camper Van Beethoven's Jonathan Segal ¹, it's a must read for anyone with even a slight interest in digital music and the money of the industry. Segal has tons of thoughts on just about every aspect of digital music, but best of all, he brings in these thoughts as someone whose initial music industry experience was in the days of purely-physical media, when "pirating" meant copying something onto a blank tape. My main takeway is general and obvious but an important reminder: we are in a transition time for music, and what it will become is anyone's guess. I think Segal's take on merchandise and live performances taking the place as artist's primary source of income as "asinine" is too harsh to be true, but I do think that we're in such a state of transition that any shot at predicting artistic income in the future is completely in the dark. Such predictions are really ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why are we still judging work done by time spent?

Every morning, when I fill in the hours on my work's electronic timesheet, I'm struck by how odd it is that we're still judging our work by the time spent on it. It's odd because it's old-fashioned. In the paper and phone world, you could really only do work when you were at work. But we do work all the time now. I check my email when I first wake up. Does that mean I start my day at 6:30 am? Should that be reflected on my timesheet? How about when I respond to an email or check Basecamp when I'm on the bus? Does my work day start then? How about when I look at Google Analytics at night or think about email newsletters when I'm in the shower (which I'm somewhat ashamed to admit I did this morning)? On the other side, if someone finishes the work that they're meant to do, why should they feel like they need to stay at work until 5:00, just because that's the official time of the work day? I don't think anyone would argue that time spent ...
Post a Comment
Read more